Another mystery car

[CanAm]

Hawkshaw said:

Lily the Pink said:

According to Wikipedia it's 78".
And the front screen certainly looks like the rear from a Metropolitan.

On this rare occasion Wikipedia is wrong.

All the small side valve Fords were either 90" or 94" wheelbase. The 7Y Eight became the E93A Anglia and then the 103E Popular, all on basically the same chassis with 90" wheelbase.

Wiki says wheelbase 78” and overall length 148”. With very small overhangs the wheelbase is obviously more than 78”.
Did someone perhaps doctor the Wiki entry, or was someone just Googling ‘78” wheelbase‘ to concoct a story around?

[borrani72]

CanAm said:

Wiki says wheelbase 78” and overall length 148”. With very small overhangs the wheelbase is obviously more than 78”.
Did someone perhaps doctor the Wiki entry, or was someone just Googling ‘78” wheelbase‘ to concoct a story around?

I think wikipedia's 78" is a typo. In the sub-section of the page on the Ford 8hp E94A Roadster, it says that the 7Y had a 90" wheelbase, which seems to make more sense..........

"For 1939 the Y7 tourer was replaced by the 8hp E94A Roadster.[1] It retained the front styling, eight hp engine and 90" wheelbase of the 7Y tourer but featured different rear panels".


Presumably, the 7Y and 7Y tourer both had the same 90" wheelbase, although it isn't 100% clear. The exact specifications of the 7Y seem quite obscure.



Bizarrely, the wikipedia 7Y page states that it is a larger version of the Model Y. The UK page for the model Y says it has a 90" wheelbase, but the Italian wikipedia page for the 7Y (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Model_Y), says it is 1980mm (78").

Edited by borrani72 on Wednesday 23 June 17:12

[silverfoxcc]

Years ago Whenever Motor or Autocar did a road test they had a side elevation drawing that sowed all the dims ,seating and more important for this the transmission. with a the engine and gearbox highlighted

No to put it to bed on 'is or isn't it a Ford 90 wheelbase' is there a whizz kid on here that could
1) lay their hands on a Road test of one of the 'early perpendicular' styled Ford esp the E93A of the later Pop that lasted until 195 or so and then ,given that the wheels are 15in on the mystery one, do a side view to see if the engine would ft under its bonnet line?

Just a thought

[Hawkshaw]

7Y saloon and tourer had the same 90" wheelbase. IIRC the tourer chassis had boxed side members to stiffen it, but was otherwise identical.

The 78" in the Wikipedia entry is probably a typo, but it does seem a remarkable coincidence that Alf's story featured a 7Y. which is one of the least- known small Ford variants.

FWIW the wheels were originally 17", 16" wheels appeared on some postwar versions and aftermarket 15" were available in the 1950s.

Edited by Hawkshaw on Wednesday 23 June 17:39

[Johnnytheboy]

silverfoxcc said:

Years ago Whenever Motor or Autocar did a road test they had a side elevation drawing that sowed all the dims ,seating and more important for this the transmission. with a the engine and gearbox highlighted

No to put it to bed on 'is or isn't it a Ford 90 wheelbase' is there a whizz kid on here that could
1) lay their hands on a Road test of one of the 'early perpendicular' styled Ford esp the E93A of the later Pop that lasted until 195 or so and then ,given that the wheels are 15in on the mystery one, do a side view to see if the engine would ft under its bonnet line?

Just a thought

I probably could find the road test on Saturday... if I remember! If someone could give me a rough idea of date.

[Hawkshaw]

I don't have the body drawing but if they are any use I do have Ford drawings for the 90" chassis frame, also a rather poor copy of the Ashley 1172 side elevation on the same chassis, this shows the engine position. I think I have a sketch with overall dimensions of the engine.

Due to the chassis design it isn't possible to lower the engine or move it back very much, which is why most Ford specials had bonnet bulges and air scoops.

[imagineifyeswill]

Just on a chance I googled Clive Bowers, Bournemouth and there certainly seems to have been quite a few people with the Bowers name connected there.

[borrani72]

Johnnytheboy said:

I probably could find the road test on Saturday... if I remember! If someone could give me a rough idea of date.

The only production dates I can find listed are 1938-1939, facelifted as the Anglia in September 1939.

[borrani72]

Hawkshaw said:

7Y saloon and tourer had the same 90" wheelbase. IIRC the tourer chassis had boxed side members to stiffen it, but was otherwise identical.

The 78" in the Wikipedia entry is probably a typo, but it does seem a remarkable coincidence that Alf's story featured a 7Y. which is one of the least- known small Ford variants.

FWIW the wheels were originally 17", 16" wheels appeared on some postwar versions and aftermarket 15" were available in the 1950s.

Edited by Hawkshaw on Wednesday 23 June 17:39

Re-reading the wikipedia page, I think that they are saying the 7Y and the Eight are the same thing. The 7Y wasn't a separate model, but just the official Ford designation for the Eight. Eight was just the marketing name, and presumably was how owners referred to their cars.

[Hawkshaw]

Borrani 72 - Yes, 7Y was what we would now call a chassis code, it didn't appear on the car badges or in the sales brochure.

Now a hypothesis for you.

One of the problems with Ford specials is getting the overall gearing high enough to compensate for a lighter body and the easiest/crudest way is to fit the largest available wheels and tyres. From the Ford parts bin these would be 18" (so about 19" rim diameter) as used on the E83W van with 500x18 tyres.

Could we be looking at a car with 90" wheelbase and 18" wheels? The scaling isn't far off and that would account for the tyres appearing to be very tight in the wheel wells. It would also explain the fancy wheel trims to hide the Ford wheels - nobody would have covered up the 15" Ballamy aftermarket wheels as they actually look quite nice.

The whole design would make a bit more sense on a 90" wheelbase.

[borrani72]

Hawkshaw said:

Now a hypothesis for you.

One of the problems with Ford specials is getting the overall gearing high enough to compensate for a lighter body and the easiest/crudest way is to fit the largest available wheels and tyres. From the Ford parts bin these would be 18" (so about 19" rim diameter) as used on the E83W van with 500x18 tyres.

Could we be looking at a car with 90" wheelbase and 18" wheels? The scaling isn't far off and that would account for the tyres appearing to be very tight in the wheel wells. It would also explain the fancy wheel trims to hide the Ford wheels - nobody would have covered up the 15" Ballamy aftermarket wheels as they actually look quite nice.

The whole design would make a bit more sense on a 90" wheelbase.

My best guess, if Alf's story is correct, is that you would have fitted a Ballamy high ratio crownwheel and pinion when the chassis and engine were rebuilt and uprated. Their 15 inch wheels would have made sense too. Of course, that would only work (match the mystery car photo') IF the Ford chassis had the (mythical?) 78 inch wheelbase, that appears to be no more than a wikipedia typo (unless anyone knows otherwise).




If the car is, as you are suggesting, built on the 90 inch chassis, then the windscreen seems to be one big problem. The Minx rear window is a very good fit with the 78 inch wheelbase, but far too small if we assume a 90 inch chassis and scale-up the model to fit.

This leaves the possibility of the rear 'screen from a Metropolitan, as per Alf's story. Scaling from a side-on picture I am estimating (rather crudely) that the Metropolitan glass seems to be, very approximately, 445mm measured along its' centreline (ie, top to bottom, along the surface of the glass), and to the outside of the window rubbers.

The newly enlarged CAD model would have a 'screen measuring close to 500mm. That would seem to be a big enough difference to discount the combination of a 90 inch wheelbase and a Metropolitan 'screen.




Admittedly, the Metropolitan 'screen measurement is a crude estimate, so I guess we need to find a car to measure. Hands-up anyone with a Metropolitan hardtop and a tape measure?





Of course, you then still have to explain where the 18 inch Ace Mercury wheel discs came from. Visually, those on the mystery car are a perfect match for their 15 inch type. The smaller, and larger versions (up to 16 inch known), have differing proportions and a different number of vent slots.

I've never heard of a 17 or 18 inch type, the only application for which would have been vintage cars or commercial vehicles, which doesn't really fit the image they were going for (dealer fit for Jaguar, TR, MG, Jensen etc).


And again, still assuming the 90 inch wheelbase, the headlamps also scale-out at a little over 9 inch diameter - the size of a dinner plate.........




I think the wheels and lights would be enormous when scaled to fit a 90 inch wheelbase.


Scaled to fit the 78 inch Ford chassis (if such a thing exists). The Ashley body, as shown, is fitted to the 90 inch Ford chassis.
The engine block fits under the mystery car bonnet line, but the ancillaries don't



The CAD model enlarged to fit the 90 inch wheelbase.
The bonnet doesn't quite clear the dynamo. Wheels and headlamps are massive.

Edited by borrani72 on Wednesday 23 June 23:22

[threespires]

borrani72 said:

My best guess, if Alf's story is correct,
The CAD model enlarged to fit the 90 inch wheelbase.
The bonnet doesn't quite clear the dynamo. Wheels and headlamps are massive.

Brilliant work -

[borrani72]

Hawkshaw said:

Interesting overlay.

I think it proves that if the wheelbase is 78" then the car is not based on a Ford side valve chassis. They were all 90" or 94" wheelbase, and it is in any case a very crude chassis which would surely not appeal to our hypothetical aircraft engineer. He could easily have designed and built something better and more suitable.

It also shows how tiny the car is compared with an Ashley, and how much the chassis intrudes into the cabin. It is very cramped inside and the doors look impractically small. I think that if "Clive" was a very short fellow and built the car accordingly, then "Alf" would probably have remembered that and mentioned it.

Have you drawn a plan view of the floorpan, bulkheads etc. which we could compare with say Lotus 6 or 7 for which drawings are available? I suggest these because the interior dimensions are about the practical minimum.

Re Ballamy wheels and high ratio CWP - It is a an urban myth that "everybody" fitted these. They were expensive, and some people didn't know any better. Often they preferred to spend their budget on engine tuning. It is quite common to find unrestored specials that have the standard CWP and wheels - the modern restorations are usually far better built and specified than they were originally. But that is irrelevant if you discount the Ford basis.

I think in fact that you have got about as far as you can scaling from the photo, which inevitably is based very much on the side elevation. There are just not quite enough clues in the photo. We need to see another photo from a different angle.

With that in mind, it would perhaps be better (though rather tedious) to research the origins of the photo and photographer than to try and recreate the car without enough data.

I'm confident that the wheelbase is 78 inches, or very close. The Minx 'screen, Triumph overriders, headlamp size and, most significantly, the 15 inch Ace Mercury wheel discs all seem to agree.

Of course, the Morris/MG chassis is an assumption. It seems the most likely donor given what is known. If this is the chassis, then I would agree that the cabin is pretty small. However, in terms of height, floor to roof, it is comparable with contemporary race-cars. A comparison with the FORD GT40 shows that they are not too different in this key dimension.

Scaled to match the Ford GT40




The GT40 would easily accommodate Dan Gurney, with a slight bulge for his crash helmet. Gurney was, I believe, about 6' 2”. Clearly, this comparison suggests the mystery car has a bit less space than the Ford, but they needed to accommodate a wide range of drivers.



Leg room would certainly be tight for somebody of average or above average height. There may be a way to improve matters a little by altering the cranked foot pedals, but I suspect the simple truth is that the driver was a little below average height. Of course, passenger leg room would be far better as there are no pedals to contend with.



I have looked at the interior dimensions in some detail.

In 1960, the pioneering industrial designer Henry Dreyfuss first published 'The Measure of Man', a comprehensive ergonomics guide for designers.

Using the 50th percentile (ie, average) male from his work, I created a 1:10 scale study. The average stature of an American male in 1960 was 5' 8.5”, and that is the figure shown. Dreyfuss also notes that the human body is capable of a certain amount of 'slouch', so it may not be quite as tight as it appears here.






I also laid-out the dimensions on the floor, at full size. I'm a bit taller than 5' 8.5”, and I found it very tight, but if the driver was around 5' 6” - 5' 7” - not a great deal below average and certainly not in any way remarkable – then it would be perfectly comfortable.


As to the size of the doors, I see no great difficulty here. The roof clearance provided by the gull-wing arrangement allows the driver to step over the sill using the top of the windscreen frame as a hand-grip.


The other leg, not shown, would be on the floor/seat inside the car (and oviously, the door would be open).



Hawkshaw, should you have any thoughts on how to trace the photographer, then by all means go for it. More pictures would be amazing. Though as soon as 'Alf' or his son get back to us with that address, I'm hoping we can learn a great deal more, and maybe find the actual car.

[thegreenhell]

People well over six foot tall can comfortably fit in a Frogeye Sprite. Headroom obviously not an issue there, but also plenty of legroom to stretch out, surprisingly so. Also, a thin bucket seat mounted directly to the floor would allow your figure to sit comfortably upright with enough headroom.

[austin]

I know this going over VERY old ground, but Austin 7 specials were all the rage at this time. Wheel base options are 75" & 81".

All sorts of interesting bodies were being made in all sorts of styles.

See for instance the L M W Special.

[borrani72]

thegreenhell said:

People well over six foot tall can comfortably fit in a Frogeye Sprite. Headroom obviously not an issue there, but also plenty of legroom to stretch out, surprisingly so. Also, a thin bucket seat mounted directly to the floor would allow your figure to sit comfortably upright with enough headroom.

I think there's a fair bit more space in the Sprite.

What I forgot to say, and isn't clear in the above image, was that the figure seated in the car is already sat on a thin seat mounted directly on the floor. The chassis rail takes-up all the space below. If you built a modern 'recreation', you could get the exterior shape right, but a spaceframe chassis would allow plenty more interior space. It depends how accurate you want to be.


The floor sits on the top of the chassis rails. They are a little too close together for the seat to sit down, between them. The lower edges of the two square-section cross-tubes sit at the bottom of the sill and are just visible on this side view.

[Yertis]

austin said:

I know this going over VERY old ground, but Austin 7 specials were all the rage at this time. Wheel base options are 75" & 81".

All sorts of interesting bodies were being made in all sorts of styles.

See for instance the L M W Special.

That's nice isn't it. Very Lotus Elite.

[piper]

austin said:

I know this going over VERY old ground, but Austin 7 specials were all the rage at this time. Wheel base options are 75" & 81".

All sorts of interesting bodies were being made in all sorts of styles.

See for instance the L M W Special.

Never knew anything about this car, is any more information available?

[austin]

piper said:

austin said:

I know this going over VERY old ground, but Austin 7 specials were all the rage at this time. Wheel base options are 75" & 81".

All sorts of interesting bodies were being made in all sorts of styles.

See for instance the L M W Special.

Never knew anything about this car, is any more information available?

It's the car that LM Williams built himself with some rather nice works A7 bits. I believe it's still around but not been seen for a while. I can't seem to find much about it online though.

There is lots about it in his book "Austin 7 Specials: Building, Maintenance and Tuning". Available from various places second hand.

[Johnnytheboy]

Ford 7Y road test in Autocar Nov 5 1937.









So, crucially wheelbase is 7'6" i.e. 78".

Model ID from a book on 30s Fords...



Sorry misorientated, on phone....